Judge orders City of Tacoma to provide police 'rules of engagement'

author : Mark Jensen topic : police misconduct | Port Militarization Resistance | Port of Tacoma

Prosecutor wants to criminalize backpacks without talking about backpacks

by Mark Jensen

Eighteen persons appeared in Tacoma Municipal Court before Judge Pro Tem Karl D. Haugh on Tuesday, April 24, as the City of Tacoma continues to press charges connected with the Port Militarization Resistance (pmr) antiwar protests at the Port of Tacoma in March 2007. Judge Haugh set May 10 as a motion date for attorneys involved in the case to appear before him to resolve issues around pretrial discovery, and May 23 as the date for another pretrial conference.

Many of the defendants at the hearing were arrested on Sunday, March 11, when 23 protesters were involved in what was perhaps the largest act of mass civil disobedience in Tacoma history. On Tuesday, the small second-floor courtroom at Tacoma's City-County Building was crowded with supporters.

Much of the hour-long hearing was taken up by complaints by attorneys Lawrence A. Hildes of Bellingham and Legrand Jones of Olympia about the failure of the City of Tacoma to respond in a timely fashion to detailed discovery requests. Defendant Phan Nguyen of Olympia, who is representing himself, joined in their requests, noting that he had received less than 24 hours earlier the sketchy police reports that constitute the City of Tacoma's only response so far to detailed discovery requests. Hildes said he had received the documents on Friday afternoon, Apr. 20, more than a month after submitting requests.

One request asked that members of the city's Disorder Response Team (drt) present on the scene be identified by name. As attorneys for the prosecution and the defense continued to spar over the request, Judge Haugh interrupted them: "I think I just ordered that [the drt team members be identified]."

An attorney representing the city of Tacoma told the judge over and over that his office had "provided what we have," and that the burden of demonstrating how other requests were "relevant" required a "reasonable factual showing" on their part. The city attorney's refusal to acknowledge the obvious materiality of "rules of engagement" that led police to arrest demonstrators for bringing backpacks into a demonstration area seemed to surprise Judge Haugh.

"See, if he was arrested for a backpack, then [any rule concerning backpacks] is material," Judge Haugh explained wearily.

Attorney Hildes explained to the judge the importance of the discovery request regarding so-called "rules of engagement" used by the police to justify arrests. "Videos mention 'rules of engagement' and 'because we say so' [as the basis for the backpack ban]. We specifically asked for the 'rules of engagement' because they keep talking about them. The backpacks contained only medical supplies and food."

"So that's the basis?" asked Judge Haugh, who seemed surprised. "Have you provided the 'rules of engagement'?" he asked the City's attorney.

"We have provided all the information we have," the prosecutor replied.

"He's going to find out," Judge Haugh told Attorney Hildes.

The defendants maintain that the backpack rule is unconstitutional, and also illegal under a Ninth Circuit case.

Judge Haugh said he had no prior familiarity with the matter before him, and expressed the hope that the parties would give him a presentation on the "anticipated factual background" of the case in the future.

Mark Jensen is a member of United for Peace of Pierce County, and of the faculty of Pacific Lutheran University.